23 January 2008
I heard an interesting ad for Ron Paul the other day where he says something along the lines of "everyone should be able to keep the fruits of his labor." The irony here, though, is that I think Paul is speaking only of liberation from taxes, i.e., no one should have the fruits of her labor -- the money earned from making a product and selling it or one's services on the market -- stolen by the State. But what about having the fruits of your labor stolen by capitalists, when a laborer receives only a fraction of what's left over from the revenue of sales when all but cost of labor has been accounted for?? That kind of theft of the fruits of one's labor seems to be just fine for Paul. If Paul has suggested that capitalism, too, is a form of theft of one's fruits-of-labor, please correct me. Otherwise, this is why he is only half-right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You must be insane if you think any politician would speak against capitalism anywhere in the Western world. (even counting the pretend socialism in Northern Europe)
First, that doesn't refute what I've said. Second, I think it's pretty safe to say that Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are democratic socialists - one a Senator and the other a Congressman (Sanders openly admitted such in an interview in 2006). So I must not be that insane. People don't have to use the word "socialism" to communicate ideas consistent with it. Ultimately, although Paul sponsored a bill favoring employee-owned corporations in 1999 (HR 1462 of the 106th Congress) -- a pretty blatant move towards socialism -- his rhetoric on such issues is weak when compared to Kucinich or Sanders.
If they're really socialists, then why aren't they against "having the fruits of your labor stolen by capitalists"?
I'm not sure what your point is, other to to pick a fight. I originally said that I though Paul was half right because I am both anti-State and anti-capitalist. Paul's rhetoric on the first is strong and on the second weak. You said that I was insane to think anyone would speak against capitalism, to which I said that I though both Senator Sanders and Congressman Kucinich have. Now you want to argue over whether they are "real" socialists? I will assert what I did in my first post: you show me where Paul has spoken against capitalism with anywhere near the rigor as Sanders, and I will stand corrected. I'm open to the idea that Paul is as anti-capitalist as many Republicans (according to Chomsky, Lincoln was one of them) were around the time of the Civil War, but I have yet to be convinced of that. So the burden of proof is on you.
"I'm not sure what your point is, other to to pick a fight."
You claimed that those two candidates were "socialists," so I asked you to justify. How is that "picking a fight"?
What an insecure response. You disappoint me.
"You said that I was insane to think anyone would speak against capitalism, to which I said that I though both Senator Sanders and Congressman Kucinich have. Now you want to argue over whether they are "real" socialists?"
You know very well they are not socialists. They may speak against capitalism, but all politicians live on a steady diet of capitalism. They sustain their careers by promoting corporate interests.
"I will assert what I did in my first post: you show me where Paul has spoken against capitalism with anywhere near the rigor as Sanders, and I will stand corrected."
Why should I care? They are all politicians, hence they are our enemies. I don't care what they claim to attack or not attack.
"I'm open to the idea that Paul is as anti-capitalist as many Republicans (according to Chomsky, Lincoln was one of them) were around the time of the Civil War, but I have yet to be convinced of that. So the burden of proof is on you."
Since when do I have that burden of proof? I never claimed that Ron Paul was anything at all. I don't care if Ron Paul claims to be anti-capitalist or not- that was your issue, not mine.
I thought you might be an interesting person to talk to, but it turns out you're a poser, Julay. So forget I said anything.
I don't disagree with your statements about politicians, and I certainly share your skepticism of Sanders and Kucinich, but your original comment was about "politicians speaking against capitalism," not about politicians being "real socialists" (whatever that might mean); and that is what I responded to, even though your first comment started as with a veiled personal attack (You start a conversation with "you must be insane…"???!!? -- that's interesting way to approach someone you might be interested in talking to). Now, rather than merely clarifying your point, you again started fighting (not even following the line of argument of the conversation) this time with personal attacks (that "I disappoint you" [as if I care about winning your approval] and that I "am a poser." You know nothing of me and my years of action. Furthermore, don't you see that implicit in your claim that I am a poser, without any cogent reasoning why you think my thought is inconsistent with anarchist thought, you somehow claim to have the monopoly on defining what an anarchist is, that you have the power to say who is a real anarchist –- after the exchange of merely a few words? Anarchism then becomes merely another oppressive dogmatism. This itself is antithetical to anarchist thought, which by its own etymology, seeks to free people from all hierarchy and oppression. So your vocal gesture undermines the very ground it stands on and, in fact, implies *you* to be the poser!). So, don't bother saying anything more. It is fruitless to engage in discourse if conversation and reason are going to continually be undermined by personal attacks. And don't worry; it won't be too hard to forget you said anything, because, in effect, you said nothing.
Post a Comment